The premise of your argument is that explicitness comes at the expense of additional complexity. I believe this premise may be flawed.
Let's rewrite it from:
> We began this public review in early 2019 to assess the monetary policy strategy, tools, and communications that would best foster achievement of our congressionally assigned goals of maximum employment and price stability over the years ahead in service to the American people.
To:
"""
We began this public review in early 2019. The goal was to assess items relating to monetary policy ("Monetary Policy" has to do with the creation and management of money at a national level).
Those monetary policy items under review were the:
- strategy.
- tools.
- communications.
The goals of the policy review, which were assigned by congress, were:
- maximum employment.
- price stability going forward, for years to come, in service to the American people.
"""
I believe nothing has been lost from the original text, and that this is far easier to read and understand.
That sentence scored 27 on the 'Gunning Fog Scale Level'. Anything above 20 is considered "very difficult" to understand.
Based on this, i think one of the main issues is the 'average american' wouldn't be able to successfully interact with a body that expresses itself in such an obfuscated manner.
I'll go as far as saying the obfuscation is utterly deliberate.
The root problem with conventional currency is all the trust that's required to make it work. The central bank must be trusted not to debase the currency, but the history of fiat currencies is full of breaches of that trust.